Blocking Members Manifesto

Have admins answered the point why the arbitrary amount 200. I'm guessing they don't know either.

>:)

I do :)

yeah, there's got to be more than 200 irish on this website! so the figure should be upped imho. on 2nd thoughts, they may have emigrated by now :-(

Well that's sad I thought what I said came across as amusing.  

me too!

The option to block others is there to help but sadly the option itself gets abused.

We have people who thought it amusing to block everyone they could so the only people they could see remaining were moderators and staff. The highest amount blocked was a little under 7'000 people.

You're lucky he's not allowed 201 blocks

I can see your point here. I will often block members for overly sexual, racial, homophobic or just plain aggressive comments in the main hall/debate chat -even if its only once and/or not directed at me. I often sit in there taking a break or whatever and I don't want to have to view this kind of rubbish so blocking them seems a good choice. I don't think I am anywhere near 200 but can imagine they would add up over time..

Billy's being a bit of a busy body!

If you only block chat abusers, you won't get over the 200 limit - I would say I met something like 10, and it was when I was at lower rating. Adding the people that trash or troll you in the forums, or make abusive statements to others, it might go up to 100, but not much more. Most people on the site just don't talk.

But it's easy to go over the 200 limit if you block everyone that disconnects when the game is lost.

This being said, that kind of people tend to disappear from the site, or from my rating range, fairly quickly, I don't know why. So when I needed a block and was at the limit something like 3 months ago, I just unblocked a good third of my list. Problem solved.

If you start blocking people that start the game by 1.e4 because you want them to start by 1.d4, or the inverse, yes you will run in trouble, but I think that's fair.

I have a jerk now talking much smack more than enough to report him. Funny how i never hear it from them when i am crushing them.

That is how i see it.

Hmmm just came to mind. It could be worse.

We could a problem like blockers blocking the blocker who blocked them and block that block that blocked them with another block.

I've always thought that blocks preventing people from posting in each others threads in the public forums was misguided.  There've been plenty of examples of someone laying a block down on someone and then proceeding to create a thread about them.  If the threads are indeed "public" once created, then they should be just that.  The OP's ability to delete threads was removed some time back, seems odd in light of this that they still have the ability to dictate who can and can't post in it.

My take is that blocks should apply to one-on-one intereactions only (challenges, PMs, notes, trophies etc.).  If this were the case, there'd be no real need for a limit.

Oh, I've also always thought that they should be automatically reciprocal.

Sunofthemorninglight wrote:

yeah, there's got to be more than 200 irish on this website! so the figure should be upped imho. on 2nd thoughts, they may have emigrated by now :-(

what's your problem? Someone forget to tell you it's not the 14 th century? You're now BLOCKED.

Careful, that's 0.5% of your available blocks.

thanks a lot, i was sharing a joke with Conquistador whose post was removed leaving mine look stupid. i'm irish but keep me on block please.

that's the downside of having prison wardens play internet chess.

I think the point being made by the op, and other minors have mentioned this, is that 200 blocks are insufficient for them. Which I think is fair enough. Maybe under 18s should have 2000 blocks.

>:)

Perhaps there should be a "block everyone" option made available when you try to apply your 201st block.

(And it just closes your account...)